Well, everyone else (two other people) have posted about Star Trek: Voyager recently, so I figured I would too.
As much as I like Star Trek in general, in theory, and in concept, Battlestar Galactica is just an all-around better show. I loved the characters on Voyager, the sense of family, the high-tech gadgets, the doctor, the captain, and so much about it, but it is formulaic, and the problems aren't nearly as human and identifiable as they are on Battlestar. Too many plotlines in Voyager are about neural gelpacks that have been infected with an alien virus from the most recently-passed nebula. Plotlines in Battlestar are about election politics, terrorism, and tension amongst coworkers—things that we deal with now. Both shows have an undercurrent of subplots relating to how the different characters interact, fall in love, and pull together during tough times; Voyager seems to spend more time on these "irrelevant" stories than Battlestar.
Now, that's not to say that there aren't great human plotlines in Voyager. Some of the best episodes are ones where, for example, the ship's holographic doctor is abducted and to treat patients on a very sick world, where he is obligated to assist, but told by his captors to treat the most "important" members of society first. That's a good, interesting plotline. But, for every one of those, there's a standard cheesy nonsense sci-fi episode, not that there's anything wrong with that from time to time. Voyager is ten times more likely to feature a storyline based on technology, whereas Battlestar Galactica is practically a modern drama like 24 that occasionally remembers that it takes place in the future.
Yet I still consider myself more of a fan of Star Trek than Battlestar Galactica. I wonder why that is. Maybe fandom is inexorably linked to that strange but pleasant emotional connection I have with the fictional characters, and Battlestar Galactica somehow isn't providing that.